The hermeneutics required to understand any book are the same. They teach hermeneutics in first year Bible College classes. Randal Rauser must have skipped out on that class or flunked it. Here is a link to several of these college level texts. Rather than rehearse this whole discipline of learning let me highlight just a few questions reasonable people must first ask in order to properly understand a text, any text. We must ask basic questions like, "Who is the intended audience?" "What is the main point of the text?" and "What does the author take for granted?" Here is a listing of others written for college students.

Most notably Rauser has criticized Boghossian's definition of atheism. In response I had said:

Randal, before snapping at a straw man like you have done without using the principle of charity (a Christian attribute, correct?), in order to properly criticize Boghossian here you need to first try to understand what his definition seeks to do. Try reading through this article and figure it out yourself.

Then Rauser responds (per the above link) with a mere assertion that he's right. A mere assertion, even though there are different ways to define a word like atheism (i.e., in Boghossian's case using an explanatory definition)! But Rauser assumes the worst and proceeds to rant against it, violating the principle of charity.

Boghossian is not writing for believers. His intended audience is non-believers. The main goal of his book is to persuade atheists on the street to get active. Persuading rhetoric can be consistent with the truth providing that the truth is on one's side. Boghossian has sought the truth and found it, so there is nothing wrong in what he's doing. Of course, Randal will disagree with Boghossian's viewpoint as to the truth. So? He's not writing to him. In his book Boghossian takes for granted that atheism is the case. He's not arguing for atheism. He now seeks to motivate atheists to action. The ONLY valid criticism of the main point of Boghossian's book is one that can successfully argue his proposals to change the religious landscape won't work.